MEDIA SAVVY
WHO’S BEEN SAYINGWHAT..?
Personally, I think that lots of people create problems in order to get
attention, and there’s many a time I have had to restrain myself from
bursting into a nearby Overeaters Anonymous group with a stack of
pizzas, and also from putting my head around the door of a local
church’s Cocaine Anonymous group and announcing ‘Oi, I'm gagging
for a line – anybody holding?’
Julie Burchill,
The Independent
, 20 January
What is behind this new trend in super-strength lagers and ciders and
why are they so cheap? Apologists for the alcohol industry say that it is
simply meeting market demand, failing to mention that before these
drinks were made available there was no demand. Just as with the
invention of alcopops, one suspects the motive for creating such
products is to fuel demand rather than to satiate it. The more alcohol
people consume the more they become dependent on it, so sales rise.
Professor David Nutt,
The Guardian
, 17 January
Why does every law hit the poor the hardest? Take the plans to tackle
binge drinking by taxing alcohol by unit strength, meaning the
stronger the drink the more you’ll pay. It’s effectively a tax on tramps.
Brian Reade,
Daily Mirror
, 20 January
There is another aspect of this case* that the smug media seem to be
avoiding. Look at the strange picture of the alleged killer Jared
Loughner. He has just been arrested for a crime for which he could be
put to death, if convicted. And he is smiling. From this, and from many
other things we already know about this man, it seems likely that he
has lost his reason. Why and how? The most likely cause is Loughner’s
daily cannabis-smoking habit. The link between this drug and serious
mental illness grows clearer every day. Wickedly, the dope lobby still
tries to deny this and seeks to legalise it.
*The 8 January shootings of 20 people, including congresswoman
Gabrielle Giffords, in Arizona
Peter Hitchens,
Mail on Sunday
, 15 January
Asked if they took drugs in their youth, both David Cameron and Nick
Clegg have always declined to comment. So how refreshing that Ed
Miliband answers the question with a straight: ‘No’. But what a shame
the opposition leader goes on to apologise for avoiding illegal drugs at
university, saying in his next breath: ‘I was a bit square’. Ed Miliband
said no to drugs, but he should not be embarrassed by that fact. Drug
abuse is a deadly and growing problem, with mounting evidence
linking cannabis to psychosis and violent crime. How many more
young lives must be destroyed before Mr Miliband’s generation stops
spreading the message that it’s uncool to say No
Daily Mail
editorial, 31 January
‘Maybe I am blind, but, in 45 years
of meeting hundreds of addicts
seeking enrolment on a recovery
programme, I have discovered only
three main factors that would make
me want to reject a potential client’
WHAT IS
CHERRY-PICKING?
Over the last few months ministers
have claimed that their new proposal
to ‘pay by results’ for recovery of
addicts to abstinence will avoid ‘cherry-
picking’ by providers of rehabilitation.
But what is this ‘cherry’ it is
believed providers want to pick? Is it
an addict who will be on his
programme for under three months,
and who will doubtless easily reach
abstinence for life?
Is it an addict who will complete
his programme only after a whole year,
thus giving the provider a guaranteed
income for the next 52 weeks?
Is it an addict who completes a
nine-week programme, relapses,
returns for another six to nine weeks,
and then goes through the same
revolving door again, thus becoming
every businessman’s joy – a regular
customer?
Or is it a figment of the imagination
of some politician or NTA staff member
who knows nothing about drug
addiction and rehabilitation?
Maybe I am blind, but, in 45 years
of meeting hundreds of addicts
seeking enrolment on a recovery
programme, I have discovered only
three main factors that would make
me want to reject a potential client:
1. An addict with a history of
psychiatric treatment seldom, if ever,
responds to an attempt to bring him
to lasting abstinence – especially if
using street drugs to self-medicate.
2. An addict who has attempted
on several earlier occasions to
escape from his habit and failed each
time becomes convinced that he is
incurable – and so is incurable.
3. An addict who is so committed
to a drug life, and who believes he
cannot live without his preferred high,
is usually enrolling for rehabilitation
because of family pressure and not
because of his own intention.
If all enrolling addicts complete
their applications truthfully, one can of
course sometimes spot the likely
failures and reject them. But this is not
a cherry selection process – quite the
reverse. It is a sensible rejection of
those likely to be wasting government,
charitable or personal funds.
So what exactly is ‘a cherry’, and
how is a provider supposed to be
able to recognise them?
Kenneth Eckersley, CEO, Addiction
Recovery Training Services (ARTS)
FOR WHOSE BENEFIT?
The benefits system is a maze that
all claimants have to negotiate to
receive the money they need, with the
money being doled out by different
departments who, despite often
sitting a few feet away from each
other, refuse to communicate. This
situation can quite often lead to
overpayments being made – for
example if someone signs off the
dole for a few weeks they often still
receive housing benefit unless they
personally inform all of the
departments involved.
When someone who is short of
money gets a payment made
mistakenly you can't blame them for
seeing it as a windfall. Unfortunately
this is often picked up in the system
at a later date and the money is then
www.drinkanddrugsnews.com
10 |
drinkanddrugsnews
| 7 February 2011
LETTERS
Media savvy |
Letters